After months of being told over and over by Rep. Rush Holt's (D-NJ) office, People for the American Way (PFAW), and many of the other most ardent supporters of Holt's flawed Election Reform Bill (HR811) that "there is no support in Congress for a ban on DREs," it looks like they must have been wrong. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and co-sponsor Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) filed such a bill today.

Here's the complete bill [PDF] which we've yet to read in full. But note this item from page 41, Line 7:

RESTRICTION ON USE OF DIRECT RECORDING ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS -
A direct recording electronic voting system may not be used to administer any election for Federal office held in 2012 or any subsequent year.

A ban on such machines, finally? Yes! By 2012? Unfortunately, yes. But let's overlook that last point for a moment.

In a statement issued by Nelson today, pointing out that DRE (often referred to as "touch-screen") voting systems are "unreliable and vulnerable to error," the senator says, "The bottom line is we have to ensure every vote is counted – and, counted properly...Citizens must have confidence in the integrity of their elections.”

The new language banning DREs was added today to a previous version of the same bill which Nelson had introduced originally in early Summer. This version "would be the first [bill] to seek a ban on electronic touch-screen voting machines in federal elections nationwide," according to his statement, which adds that the language was updated after a recent meeting with Florida's Republican Secretary of State Kurt Browning, once an ardent support of DRE voting systems.

When Nelson's original version of the legislation was introduced some months ago, it was largely a "clone version" of Holt's original HR811 introduced in the House, but with a number of extra provisions addressing concerns of voter intimidation and suppression.

Little attention had been given to Nelson's bill at the time, since the Rules Committee was regarded as having jurisdiction for any Election Reform bills in the Senate, and the committee chair, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), had made clear she intended to introduce her own version of Election Reform as the Senate counterpart to Holt's. She eventually introduced S. 1487, which has been subsequently criticized by Election Integrity advocates as being even more flawed then Holt's much-criticized bill.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: We were invited to work on the Holt bill prior to its introduction, and succeeded in adding several much-improved provisions. Yet the bill, as currently written --- and far more so since being drastically watered down throughout the committee process --- has failed to garner our support.)

DREs: "Not a Reasonable Voting System"

Neither Feinstein's nor Holt's bill had called for a ban on DRE voting systems, however, despite an outcry among Election Integrity advocates and a host of computer scientists and security experts who argued that DREs were vulnerable to hacking, non-transparent, prone to error, antithetical to democracy, and thus simply could not be used safely in elections. With or without a so-called "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail" (VVPAT) printer attached.

Johns Hopkins computer professor Avi Rubin testified earlier this year that "after four years of studying the issue, I now believe that a DRE with a VVPAT is not a reasonable voting system."

Stanford professor and VerifiedVoting.org founder David Dill, arguing in favor of the Holt bill, admitted, "I would personally prefer to see optical scan machines used nationwide."

And former legislative director of VoteTrustUSA.org Warren Stewart, now also of VerifiedVoting, had told a Senate panel earlier this year that while there were disagreements among some in the EI movement, most had agreed that touch-screen systems must not not be used. "While this broad based movement embraces a wide range of proposals and positions," he testified, "it is unified in the conclusion that the direct electronic recording of votes to computer memory is inimical to democracy."

And yet, all three of the above advocates, along with many others, continued to argue --- while failing to offer any actual evidence for the claim --- that there was simply no support for the idea of a DRE ban in either house of the U.S. Congress.

All the while, The BRAD BLOG had maintained that they, and the other Holt supporters, had fallen victim to a hoax by People for the American Way (PFAW). The popular public advocacy group had long pushed the unsupported notion that there was no congressional support for such a ban, in order to see the bill passed specifically without such a ban. It was one of several false notions being forwarded by the group in favor of the bill, as we argued both here and at Alernet early in the year.

A careful examination of PFAW's on-the-record statements, and numerous on and off-the-record conversations with their Executive Director and legislative leaders by The BRAD BLOG over many months, revealed that PFAW (almost inexplicably) has actually been advocating in favor of the use of dangerous DRE voting systems in American elections. It's fair to say that Holt's bill had thus been held hostage to ensure that such systems would not be banned.

But then came the fallout from the failed 13th Congressional District election last November in Nelson's home state, followed by California Sec. of State Debra Bowen's landmark scientific findings, Rep. Susan Davis's (D-CA) amendment this past summer, and a killer editorial from the New York Times as the tide began to slowly turn...

The Beginning of the End?

The flawed FL-13 House election, where 18,000 votes disappeared on touch-screen voting systems --- in a race decided by just 369 votes --- led the state's new Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, to take the lead in an effort to ban DREs in Florida once and for all. He was (mostly) successful in that effort and, for the first time in too many years, Floridians will soon return to voting on far more transparent paper-ballot systems.

Early this year in California the new Democratic Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, commissioned the University of California for an unprecedented "Top-to-Bottom Review" of all e-voting systems used in the state.

"The independent teams of analysts were able to bypass both physical and software security measures in every system tested," she announced as the results of her landmark, independent study were released over the summer. Every DRE voting system used in the state was immediately and easily penetrated in such a way that election results could be flipped without detection. The study led to a return to paper ballots, and restrictions of no more than one DRE per polling place --- with the exception of machines made by one company --- in order to marginally meet federal standards for voters with disabilities. The so-called "paper trails" for each such DRE system still to be used will have to be 100% hand-counted after every election.

In the wake of Bowen's findings, and with the Holt bill --- now greatly compromised by PFAW, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and the software industry that had lobbied to remove important source-code disclosure provisions --- on the verge of going to the floor of the House for a full vote, the first call for a restriction on the use of DREs in the Holt Bill was attempted in the U.S. House.

In a modest amendment filed to the Holt Bill in September, and with the wind of the findings of her home state's Secretary of State at her back, Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) called for a federal restriction on the use of DREs by 2012, similar to the one imposed by Bowen in California.

"As we have looked closely at all the issues concerning Election Day voting systems, we are still ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room," Davis said in a statement issued to The BRAD BLOG. "Although Rep. Holt’s bill has looked at many tough issues, there is one controversial issue that seems to come up again and again in my discussions with voters, activists and elections officials," she wrote in reference to the debate about DREs taking place nearly everywhere but in the U.S. Congress.

"The wealth of data and opinions on this topic are so strong that I feel Congress would be remiss if we do not allow a debate on the question of whether and how Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting Machines should be used in federal elections....It is my hope that Congress will address this issue in the near future," announced the Congresswoman from San Diego. Her office told us they were delighted about the support they'd subsequently received from other offices in favor of their amendment.

The day after Davis filed her amendment, a New York Timeseditorial said of Holt's HR811, "It is unfortunate that the bill does not contain a provision banning the use of touch-screen voting machines."

"There is still time before the bill becomes law to add a ban on touch-screen voting," the Times continued. "If the House fails to do so, the Senate should, and it should fight for it to be in the final bill...There have been calls for putting a solution off until 2012. That is too long to wait."

The Path Ahead

Still mired in dysfunction, still not having made it to the House floor, the Holt bill languishes for the moment --- to either the pleasure or disdain of various elements of the Election Integrity community, depending on which of them are yelling at you. It's unclear whether or not Davis's amendment to the Holt bill will be allowed for debate, should the bill ever be allowed to come to the House floor for a vote.

While Nelson's bill, as introduced today, may yet have many flaws and controversial provisions within it --- as mentioned earlier in this article, we've yet to read the entire 64-page bill, and the devil in this sort of legislation is most definitely in the details --- the fact that a ban on DREs is finally being discussed, in the open, via legislation in the United States Congress, is certainly a positive sign.

A ban on DREs for 2012, as Nelson's legislation now calls for, will do little protect the 2008 election, of course. Yet the new bill most certainly augurs a move in the right direction, even if it never makes it through Feinstein's committee or to the Senate floor in its current version.

As well --- and contrary to yet another bit of misleading argument made by PFAW and Holt in their attempt to garner support from an unsuspecting public for their flawed HR811 --- still other possibilities for reform that may have a real effect on 2008 exist. Even at this late date. But action on that front is currently being held up, at least in the House, by Holt's not-completely-dead-yet HR811.

All the while, however, as VerifiedVoting's Stewart testified, there is virtual, across-the-board unanimity (with the exception of PFAW) among those who know the dangers of E-voting best, that DREs should immediately be sent the way of the butterfly ballot --- to the trash bin of history.

We'll hope that Nelson and Whitehouse's bill sparks discussion in the Senate on the inevitable and once-and-for-all end to DRE voting. As Davis smartly said, as her amendment began to do just that in the House; "Our democracy is too important to ignore this issue any longer."

The key provisions of Holt are in the bill - the audit and paper trail rules:

"...electronic tally shall not be used as the exclusive basis for de-termining the official certified vote tally.
RULE FOR CONSIDERATION OF BALLOTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH VOTING MACHINE.—For purposes of clause (i), only the paper ballots deemed compromised, if any, shall be considered in the calculation of whether or not the result of the election could be changed due to the compromised paper ballots.
...in the event that the unofficial count as described in section 323(a)(1) reveals that the margin of victory between the two candidates receiving the largest number of votes in the election is less than 1 percent of the total votes cast in that election, the hand counts of the voter-verified paper ballots shall occur in at least 10 percent
...greater than or equal to 1 percent but less than 2 percent of the total votes cast in that election, the hand counts of the voter-verified paper ballots shall occur in at least 5 percent

...greater than 2 percent of the total votes cast ..in that election, the hand counts of the voter-verified paper ballots shall occur in at least 3 percent"

.

If Holt had passed we'd now be into conference and preparing for 08 audits - but you and others saw "fatal flaws" in Holt - so we will not have audits in 08, and God only knows where this bill is going now that there is no bill coming out of the House. I hope we do have this bill in place for 2012 -but we could have had as much much more easily, and in 08, if you and friends had not opposed Holt.

Good article, Brad! This is definitely one I am retaining a link to as a future reference.

I am so reluctant to throw myself behind this, though, as it makes its way to the floor for a vote, and undoubtedly changes due to all the inevitable backroom dealing. At what point can we be assured that this is a keeper?

Also, I have a question for you. Is it possible on the internet to find out exactly which individuals and businesses within industries are contributing to legislative coffers, and in what amounts? I recently discovered, thanks to Colbert, the following site:http://www.opensecrets.org/

It contains a lot of useful information, but not in the detail I'm interested in obtaining.

For example, I'd like to learn how much each touch-screen voting machine company is contributing to which candidates, including through PACs, collective efforts, and other routes that allow them to hide themselves from citizen scrutiny.

OK Guys!
We all knew legislation could not, would not, happen overnight. It is up to EACH ONE OF US to contact our County Registrar to volunteer to be a part of the election/vote counting process. If you are worried about whether your vote will be counted in the next election, become a poll worker or organize a group to oversee the transparency of your vote being processed from marking your X to seeing it on the official documents. Don't let the MEDIA or the "elected" officials tell us who won --- WE WILL TELL THEM WHO WON WHEN WE, THE CITIZENS, ARE FINISHED COUNTING THE BALLOTS. Period. But that means WE get involved. We still have a choice on how this all plays out. Take advantage of it before we don't have that choice.

You say, "If Holt had passed we'd now be into conference and preparing for 08 audits - but you and others saw "fatal flaws" in Holt"

Perhaps a lesson on today's Congress is in order. The Dem. majority in the Senate is not really a majority. Not much goes to the floor for a vote that is not "filibuster proof". That means 60 votes minimum.

According to Senate Rules Committee staff, no election related bill will be allowed out of the committee to go to the floor unless it is assured of being "filibuster proof" and no election related bill will have that assurance.

So, if Holt is voted on by the House and gets a majority it will probably die in the Senate.

And there is nothing that the proponents or opponents of Holt will be able to do about that. It's just a fact of life right now.

If it wasn't asking for real leadership from both the R's and the D's , I would suggest that this be changed to be executed and rolled out in 5 months, instead of 5 years, and to include, "All electronic tabulation devices" , instead of just DRE's.

And again for those who may try to misinterpret me, I am not saying you can't use a PRINTER to PRINT a PAPER ballot, but you can't use microprocessors and logic to count PAPER BALLOTS.

If we knew a dam was going to fail in 2008, would we waste five years time before sending someone to quick fix it; at least by lowering the water level, and relieving the pressure with a diversion tunnel?

Perhaps we would. As it seems it takes a major catastrophe before "so-called" leaders are moved to do fix anything. Even post catastrophe our leaders seem inept.

Think how much damage can be done in five more years.

Maybe with the late night talk shows on strike, corporate media might use that missing time for some real journalism, instead of trying to poll to figure out what re-runs of decade old series' viewers want to regurgitate.

#9 above, spot on with what you say about not having a majority. Seems to me though a filibuster should work two ways though, but doesn't seem to work that way, when you add in the reality of a presidential veto on everything without (what is it 66 votes?)

If Holt had passed we'd now be into conference and preparing for 08 audits - but you and others saw "fatal flaws" in Holt - so we will not have audits in 08, and God only knows where this bill is going now that there is no bill coming out of the House. I hope we do have this bill in place for 2012 -but we could have had as much much more easily, and in 08, if you and friends had not opposed Holt.

As John Gideon mentioned above, even if Holt's bill had passed, you'd need a Senate counterpart to have passed. So your silly argument fails on that alone.

The Nelson bill calls for audits for '08 almost exactly like those proposed in the intial HR81 Holt bill.

That said, however, audits of DRE machines are even worse than useless. "Worse"? Yes.

An audit of a DRE system where the paper trail has been gamed along with the internal numbers, could result in showing DREs to be "100% accurate" even though they had been gamed. In the meantime, the audit of the paper-based op-scan system next to it might (likely) be found as inaccurate.

The result: You've just created ammunition for killing paper-based systems and going to all DREs because they have been found to be "the most accurate" by the standards of the bill you fought for!

Think ahead "Papau" and other Holt supporters. And be careful what you wish for.

I am so reluctant to throw myself behind this, though, as it makes its way to the floor for a vote, and undoubtedly changes due to all the inevitable backroom dealing. At what point can we be assured that this is a keeper?

I'm not suggesting it's "a keeper" now for that matter! Be sure to read the whole article. Also, be sure to read the bill before supporting it (as with ANY bill!)

You are wise to be skeptical. Please continue to be (with a note that "skeptical" is not the same as "cynical")

Also, I have a question for you. Is it possible on the internet to find out exactly which individuals and businesses within industries are contributing to legislative coffers, and in what amounts?

It's not easy. As you note. There are other sites like OpenSecrets out there, and as well, candidates must file disclosures for their campaign donations. Those are public record. But they must be tracked down, and then the names and companies must be researched to figure it all out.

In other words, they don't make it easy to find what you're looking for, but it *can* be found out. Usually. With enough digging.

#2: PAPAU--
"...If Holt had passed we'd now be into conference and preparing for 08 audits."
Really? Can you sure about that?...

In Florida, the 2nd District Court of Appeals just ruled AGAINST S.A.F.E's paper ballot/ mandatory 5% audit charter amendment that voters passed by 55% on Nov. 7th, 2006. Another strange victory for the ES&S and their deluded minion, SOE Kathy Dent aided by the confused efforts SOS Kurt Browning, whose position on DRE's is suspect, at best. He says one thing, does the opposite.

To assume you would have clean and easy steering POST HOLT to pass new audit laws through this same, hapless body before 2008 seems as unlikely to me as Santi Clause raining down election reform in shiny boxes from his sleigh. I admire your absurd faith.

Kindly remember that HR 811 makes review of e-voting software the province of experts of unstated qualifications, selected by unknown beurocrats and bound by non-disclosure agreements not to say what they may have found...

This, friends and colleagues, is in no way transparent --- [besids being futile; but that's a topic for another time.]

If DREs are "unreliable and vulnerable to error," and if "[t]he bottom line is we have to ensure every vote is counted – and, counted properly," as declared in your November 1 statement, why would you be willing to wait until 2012 for DREs to be banned?

I mean, isn't there a somewhat important election coming up in, oh, let's say, 2008?

May the support you get for this portion of your bill lead to you to amend it to require paper ballots (not paper trails) in 2008!

Once again I find myself typing out "Hallelujah" on the BradBlog site!

And a Happy All Saints Day it is!

But the point of All Saints Day is to rise like the phoenix out of the fear, away from the evils both real and imagined, into the light of Truth, of Good/God, and Compassion.

And so it is we truly experience this transformation this year.

For surely we have been living years of fear, because of the evils both real (stolen elections protected by a corrupt Department of Justice --- every federal agency being handed over to corporate lobbyists --- and, worst of all,the annihilation of the Iraqi and Afghan civilizations, as well as the sacrifice of American lives, all to feed the insatiable greed of the oil, arms manufacturing and service industries) --- and imagined (the Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice/Rumsfeld/Giuliani drumbeats).

To fully wallow in the depths of Halloween this year, my daughter and I went to closing night of the brilliant, dark Sondheim musical Sweeney Todd in Park City, Utah.

Though I know the music fairly well, and have seen it before both on the video and in a large theater, this time, in an intimate theater, with a brilliant cast, and with years now of never-ending horrific realizations discovered in my study of the Bush administration, I literally shuddered on the piece's final note.

For the first time, I recognize the universal truths present in Sweeney Todd:

1. Justice executed by those who use their authority for selfish gain brings ruin to Family, Individual Sanity, Society, and ultimately Itself.

2. A world where Industry rules is Filthy, and Corrupt and Cannibalistic, where previously decent people become Heartless Profiteers.

3. The only way to burst through the degradation of such a world is for good people to hear each other and work towards Shining the Light for All to Recognize the Crimes, so there can be real Justice.

Sounds familiar, eh?

Now, let's keep the ball rolling! Make those calls! Write those emails! Spread the word!

P.S. Don't let my praise of Sweeney Todd be seen as an endorsement of the upcoming film directed by Tim Burton, with Johnny Depp. There's reason to believe the meaning of the work may well be lost by the reported overuse of blood. Silly boys.

Brad, you are correct that the bill reads as being in place for 11/08 - I doubt that it is possible after the defeat of Holt and subsequent delay. Indeed in a phone call discussion of our first glance at the bill - my caller and I agreed that the month or more lost in the House meant that the 08 was a fake date and that the sponsor's were aiming for 2010 at best.

We will see if it is real - I hope it is - and there is no doubt that the Senate Bill includes a fix to every problem raised with Holt.

But the game now is to get Feinstein to withdraw her bill in favor of this one (and likewise with any other bill in the Senate to withdraw in favor of this one) and get it passed, then get a bill read, to the floor, and passed in the House, to conference and out, and passed and signed between the end of the Thanksgiving recess and the Xmass recess - because the first due date in the bill is for things to happen by 1/1/08.

It looks to me like a doable but unlikely accomplishment.

You slowed the process down with Holt, and now claim that because the bill says 11/08 start date, that is the date that it will be effective. I assume you have a plan to make it all happen in the shorten period that we now have.

I hope your plan works and you prove me wrong about your killing any 11/08 reform.

Just to restate the facts - I said:

"If Holt had passed we'd now be into conference and preparing for 08 audits - but Brad and others saw "fatal flaws" in Holt - so we will not have audits in 08, and God only knows where this bill is going now that there is no bill coming out of the House. I hope we do have this bill in place for 2012 -but we could have had as much much more easily, and in 08, if Brad and friends had not opposed Holt."

John.

I do not believe this will be in place for 11/08, and I believe the reason will be the killing of Holt. My sense of the Senate was that the GOP were not going to make a 60 vote issue of this - but I could well have been wrong. Passing Holt would have been no guarantee of an 11/08 date - but it would have made it much more likely, in my opinion.

Brad - I hope your analysis of the time needed to get this bill passed and made into law is better than mine - and that indeed no damage was done by killing Holt - but we will not have to wait very long to find out.

"... and there is no doubt that the Senate Bill includes a fix to every problem raised with Holt."

... actually, no. Surprised? Somehow, I didn't think you'd be...

The "ban on DRE's after 5 more years" is being used to push all the other bad crap left over from 811 past a supposedly cheering audience.

That the ban is there is good news... the rest of the bill? not so much...

Secret software is still... secret. The supposedly temporary (actually supposedly already defunct) EAC is still permanently empowered as a Federal level election control agency... audits are still fixed % and thus riggable... on and on.. the list is long...

... I should have a full-up comparision in the morning..

... but hey! the easily gamed audits are still Kathy Dopp's audits so we know that the bill already has one built-in cheerleader...

You know, I do so wish we could discuss this stuff without mention of the EAC bit, because every time I think of it my screws not only loosen further but start flying off my head like bullets blasting holes in the walls of my humble abode.

"You know, I do so wish we could discuss this stuff without mention of the EAC bit, because every time I think of it my screws not only loosen further..."

But with Bush's signing statement over the EAC about to be (supposedly) rendered moot then keeping the EAC is going to be the real centerpiece of any supposed "election reform" bill come hell or high water. The Feds will not turn loose of that power... even with the current litany of disastrous excesses of federal power. (and not all of those are executive branch excesses either)

Remember Brad's report on Hoyer's "Manager's Amendment"? The make-or-break amendment that was supposed to get Holt's Fiasco passed no matter what?

It tried to do that by tossing aside everything that Holt supporters had been keying on... "paper trails", audits... everything that had been used to push the bill was suddenly rendered optional....
... except for two things...

Secret software and the EAC as a permanent federal-level election control agency.

Those were not optional.

... this might indicate to someone what is really important to those inside the Beltway...

My girlfriend thought up a simple idea on how such a
change could be made, quicker than a total ban. And it
wouldn't garner as much opposition by manufacturers
of the machines. It's simple and it's really effective too.
Just create a new voting law for all states & districts for
ALL elections. One way of voting everywhere, to end all.
Simply create an ATM style touch screen machine that'll
create a paper result. If it isn't correct on paper, then they
can vote again, negating the prior vote, still producing just
one paper. That paper is fed into a scanner that also reads
it as the optical scan machines do now. The papers are all
collected and HAND COUNTED in plain sight, by a panel
with bipartisan representative oversight. This allows them
to have an immediate set of two results. If one of them is
not matching, right away, fraud would be caught.They'll
have a hard time hacking two machines. That result is for
all intents PRELIMINARY. Until the final paper trail count
is in and all three match within a very tight margin of error,
there is no official result. This way you won't have optical
scan theft which is also possible (since results are tabulated
in a computer, so beating touch screens won't stop that) &
you can't have 'stuffed ballot boxes' either. And each voter
gets to verify their vote is as they wanted it to be. The only
possibility of 'fraud' then is for a partisan hack to go in and
say 20-30 vote castings went wrong, but that will be very
easy to catch, if nobody but them has that problem then.
We have the technology for this kind of compromise so
why not use it. Make all manufacturers happy, have no
need EVER for a re-count as each one has that already!
We need to fix this problem in a way the right (ie. those
corporate liberals who want the companies involved in it.)
Furthermore, what a great way to catch fraud. If one of
the touch screen companies is doing fraud, the other two
methods consistently differing is your proof, right there...
Mark D.

Papau said at #20, the same thing she said (with only slight modification) at Democratic Underground here, to which I responded here.

If you'd be kind enough to have this conversation in one of the two places, it would be much appreciated. But since you resposted here, I'll re-reply here by copying my comments from DU right here...

Papau said:

there is no doubt that the Senate Bill includes a fix to every problem raised with Holt.

Not sure which bill *your* reading, but many of the existing problems with Holt are still in Nelson's updated version. Example: Non-disclosure requirements are still built into Nelson's version so that only so-called "experts" may review the software used on voting systems.

You slowed the process down with Holt...

You're welcome.

...and now claim that because the bill says 11/08 start date, that is the date that it will be effective. I assume you have a plan to make it all happen in the shorten period that we now have.

I made no such "claim", nor do I have any such "plan to make it all happen" because as I see it, there are big problems with the Nelson bill as it's currently written. Starting (but not ending) with the fact that DREs will be allowed for '08. Coupled with audits, that could be the death knell for paper based voting systems, as you well know.

I hope your plan works and you prove me wrong about your killing any 11/08 reform.

Kathy, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you are imagining some "plan" I have for the Nelson bill, your imagination is failing you again. Even if it were passed as is tomorrow, and even if the Holt bill was changed in conference to match it, it would still be a) a dangerous bill and b) not funded unless it's included in the '08 appropriations which are ongoing write now. Otherwise, a supplemental would have to be passed in appropriations to pay for it.

That said, it still has most of the previous failings of the Holt bill which became much worse throughout the compromise/committee process.

"If Holt had passed we'd now be into conference and preparing for 08 audits - but Brad and others saw "fatal flaws" in Holt - so we will not have audits in 08, and God only knows where this bill is going now that there is no bill coming out of the House. I hope we do have this bill in place for 2012 -but we could have had as much much more easily, and in 08, if Brad and friends had not opposed Holt."

Once again, as seems now a regular occurrence with you, Kathy, your imagination is getting the better of you.

If you think my pointing out known fatal flaws in the bill has kept up from having "audits in 08", you must be in even more of a dreamland than I suspected.

Again, if you're looking for an "enemy" and someone to blame for the split in the EI movement, I'd suggest you take a look at PFAW her single-handedly hijacked the bill to ensure that DREs would be allowed for use. Forever.

Had they not done that, and had folks like you not believed and passed on their nonsense (I've got plenty of email from you to prove it) that "nobody in Congress supports a DRE ban" when we now know definitely that many do, we might have been able to march forward TOGETHER, in support of a bill that wouldn't make us worse off than we are now, as Holt's bill would.

Good points. I didn't consider that. Well how about this one here? Eliminate the ATM, and go with scanning machines. But just have a mandatory recount by hand of scanned ballots, in each place.

But with one caveat. Allow ATM style machines for those who will
view the paper result and verify it. The disabled who may not be
able to darken in the squares on a scanner type ballot. The idea
is the machine is just there to help those who need it, and not
a source of a vote count. And still, only the paper count will
be the final result. The scan machine will only be preliminary.

My concern is we beat the touch screens, but scanners are little
better, if they can be flipped in computers. They can't flip paper
in a computer. And EVERY election will have it's recount already.

No slowing it down for a later count, calling in people in what is
a haphazard way to count paper. It will be part of the process,
and we will all have to wait for it. A little more time is fair trade
for a fair election where votes count and are not stolen away.

The term "destruction of civilization" does not mean the destruction of anything other than civility.By civilization I mean a pattern of decent behavior.

The loss of it brings up the spectre of the return of barbarianism and the loss of decency. Might makes right will be the wisdom then.

The current oil-surges and the ongoing oil war in Iraq coupled with the "destroy the muslims" rhetoric of the old line crusaders seems to be the vessel that is taking us down the road.

Stalin got rid of every voting system except paper ballots, but still had to kill millions of his own people to "prove his point".

As nations prepare to prove their point and western and eastern civilization approach 2012, which could be the year oil reaches $500 a barrel, only those who have invaded oil patch to steal and hoard their oil can remain empires.

But who can think of any decent empires in history that should be the model for society? And when you make your choice, which one still survives?

The true zealots of the EI movement may even begin to believe that ridding the world of the DRE by 2012 is the only way to save the world.

I'll be putting the version comparison up on blackboxvoting.org in a few minutes but here's the short version: same ol' same ol'...

Some details including further exposition on the EAC's role in the DRE ban debate:

Nelson's original bill, S. 559, was nigh-identical to Holt's original version with a couple of improvements added. Chiefest among those was a secret software ban.

Holt's originally flawed bill went downhill fast from there... as has been noted here... often...

The version of s.559 posted above is the senate compromise to HR 811...

.... senate... compromise...

... yep...

... they caved on almost every important point and now s.559 is almost as bad as Holt 811's last known version. Including mandates for corporate trade secrets runnin our elections.

The eventual DRE ban in 2012 was tossed in as a sop to the rabble... (we is teh rabble ) ... but as Brad noted this was actually a fatal error on someone's part in that it does show the "no-DRE-ban-possible" lies for what they are... lies.

But as DRE's are needed as an excuse to prop up the federal-level centralized power grab that is the EAC... any attempt to ban DRE's immediately will fail unless the legislators are told outright that they can't have that power.

Yes, it's still the same old story... but apparently they figure that four years of the states asking the feds "Mother may I?" for federal permission to pass laws in order to run state elections and four years of the fed's being required to certify state elections will be enough to cement the power grab and let it take permanent hold...

... as for those who (rightfully) want DRE's banned now?

It won't happen unless you get the legislators to finally sunset the EAC as it was supposed to be and fold what work it actually needs to do back into the proper agencies...

... but they won't do that.

There's no reason for them not to do that... not since Holt and company are still lying about the power grab even on their web sites... but they won't do it.

They still need DRE's to justify the EAC, and even though the EAC was a Republican power grab the Democratic feds will not turn loose of it.

Unless they are made to let go of it by the... "uneducated American voters"... (...a purported quote from Holt)

Perhaps, because that far out, there will then be the time to replace them with some new voting technologies (not yet developed) that are just as bad or worse - yet won't be suspected because "they're not DREs".

Paper ballot is the only hope that we have for having honest Elections in this Country. Not "paper trails". Not "paper receipts". But true paper ballot.

We should be focusing on End-To-End Transparency.
That is the issue.

Once any part of the voting process is under the control of a closed-system (such as Centralized Precinct Tabulation Systems), then you have necessarily a black-box outcome that clearly cannot be trusted.

We need the Congress to establish Paper-Ballot, publically monitored, end-to-end open and transparant Elections.

Is THIS just as important? Remember in California that bill the GOP was trying to pass to cut up California electoral votes so they could steal some? The GOP only proposed it in California? Not any Red States? And it got shot down?

There will never be another Democratic president if this goes through...forget about e-vote machines, they wouldn't need them! The GOP isn't giving up on this in California! This is the surprise way they will win the 2008 presidential election!

I've been reviewing the various versions of Holt's Fiasco and related discussions (finally!) and the following unclear phrasing in my comment #34 belatedly lept out at me

... the_zapkitty said on 11/3/2007 @ 8:39 am PT... "... states asking the feds "Mother may I?" for federal permission to pass laws in order to run state elections and four years of the fed's being required to certify state elections..."

... I'm of course referring to the federal-level elections held by the states and the EAC's sudden controlling interest in them via Holt's Fiasco...

... although...

... the necessities of expensive e-voting means that the EAC mandates will perforce severely impact state and municipal elections as well even without the EAC asserting primacy in governing local result certification...

... sigh... all this unneeded crap in a vain attempt to prevent another external intervention ala 2000...

News for Holt and company: that's not how they played the game in the first place.

Go ahead. Centralize control. They'll be laughing every step of the way while extorting ever-more massive concessions from Pelosi and Reid in the name of "bipartisanship"...

... and then? Why then they'll have centralized control of elections...